Logics of anarchy

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Logics of anarchy by Mind Map: Logics of anarchy

1. Hobbesian

1.1. emmity (p. 260-261)

1.1.1. Enemies are constituted by representation of the other as an actor who

1.1.1.1. does not recognize the right of the self to exist as an autonomous being, and therefore

1.1.1.2. will not willingly limit its violence toward the self.

1.1.2. The violent antagony

1.1.2.1. Britain and Argentina were enemies during the Falkland War

1.1.3. The distinction

1.1.3.1. The others intentions are whether he is thought to be trying to kill or enslave the self, or

1.1.3.2. merely trying to beat or steal from him

1.1.4. Some enemies are justified

1.1.4.1. real

1.1.4.1.1. the other really poses a threat towards the self

1.1.4.2. Chimeras

1.1.4.2.1. Jews to Nazis

1.1.4.3. The difference affects the dynamics of enmity and whether it can be overcome

1.1.5. Representing the other as an enemy tends to have at least four implications for a state´s foreign policy posture and behavior (p. 262).

1.1.5.1. States will tend to respond to enemies by acting like deep revisionists themselves

1.1.5.1.1. they will try to destroy or conquer them (kill or be killed)

1.1.5.2. Decision-making will tend to heavily discount the future and be oriented toward the worst-case.

1.1.5.3. Relative military capabilities will be seen as crucial.

1.1.5.4. If war, there will be no limit on their violence.

2. Lockean Culture

2.1. Rivalry: Different than enmity (p. 279-280).

2.1.1. Rivals recognize each other’s sovereignty and right to exist

2.1.2. Less threatening.

2.2. Anarchical Society (rivalry) (p. 283).

2.2.1. Actors (states) act towards their rivals more because of the system, than for what they know of each other.

2.2.1.1. If the subjective beliefs change, so does the system.

2.3. Four tendencies

2.3.1. Warfare is accepted but limited (p. 283-284).

2.3.1.1. Wars of conquest are rare, they have the function of returning to the status quo.

2.3.1.2. Constitutive wars: The existence of the unit (state) is at stake → Hobbesian.

2.3.1.3. Configurative: The existence of the units are recognised by all parties and struggle is towards territory, advancement or resources.

2.3.2. Membership is key (p. 284)

2.3.2.1. Recognition of sovereignty by other states causes low state “death rate” Example during colonial times

2.3.2.1.1. Example during colonial times → American colonies❎ Other european states ✅

2.3.3. Balance of power (p. 284).

2.3.3.1. If states think that others recognize their sovereignty, their survival is not at stake

2.3.3.2. if their relative power falls, then the pressure to maximize power is much less

2.3.4. Neutrality becomes a recognized status (p. 285).

2.3.4.1. There is no longer a threat of revisionism

2.3.4.1.1. If states can solve their differences, there is no need for them to compete militarily.

2.4. Right of sovereignty (property) through rivalry (p. 285-286).

2.4.1. Preservation of property inherent to individual

2.4.1.1. Rivalry is compatible with the use of force to settle disputes (level of violence that the states expect from each other).

2.4.2. Collective representation

2.4.2.1. system has a logic of its own

2.5. Three degrees of internalization

2.5.1. First degree (westphalian system) (p. 287)

2.5.1.1. States comply to with sovereignty norms because they are forced by superior powers.

2.5.1.2. Regardless of material power and shared ideas, states are driven by the order already established rather than the compliance and self interest.

2.5.1.3. Superior powers balance sovereignty though coercion in order to ensure durability of Lockean cultures

2.5.2. Second degree (p. 287 & 288)

2.5.2.1. when states comply with sovereignty norms because they think it will advance some exogenously given interest: security or trade.

2.5.2.2. Focal point- expectations converge, reduced uncertainty and enables states to coordinate actions on mutually beneficial outcomes

2.5.2.3. Culture matters much more here than in the First Degree case, still there is a variable between power, interest and outcomes.

2.5.2.4. The choice must be made for consequentialist reasons because it is still determined by external situations.

2.5.2.5. Status quoness is a strategy, not an interest.

2.5.3. Third degree (constructivist hypothesis) (p. 289).

2.5.3.1. States comply with its norms because they accept them as legitimate, because they identify with them and want to comply.

2.5.3.2. States are status quo not at a level of behaviour, but of interests as well, and as such as self regulating actors.

2.5.3.3. Internalized norms become so deep, that interests are defined in terms of norms and regulates its own behaviour accordingly.

2.5.3.4. Certain type of state is the main actor of the system, self interested, and international system is in part a self-help system.

2.6. The Foucault effect

2.6.1. When moderns conceptualize and treat each other as individuals → Essentially liberal → Similar to Lockean perception of states. (P. 291)

2.6.2. First individualizing effect

2.6.2.1. defining the criteria of the membership of the system (P. 291) → expulsion of foreign states or their retirement without resistance.

2.6.3. Second effect

2.6.3.1. what kinds of type identities get recognized as individuals. “Standards of civilization” in Westphalia. (P. 292).

2.6.4. Third effect

2.6.4.1. Collective & Social Identities. Sentiment of “belonging” to the system (p. 293)

2.6.5. Fourth Effect

2.6.5.1. possesive individualism → “Neither as a moral whole, but as an owner of itself” → Undermine the previous effects (p. 294).

3. Kantian

3.1. A world of republican states (p. 297)

3.1.1. An idealist possible structural order within a non-violence and team play based.

3.1.2. Republican states is the only way to make this happen: the Kant’s perpetual peace.

3.1.3. Realist: see States acting over interests

3.1.4. Rationalist: see states acting over self-interest and utility-maximizations.

3.2. Friendship (p. 298- 299)

3.2.1. The Kantian culture is based on a role structure of friendship.

3.2.2. The idea of friend in an international arena is seemed as utopian because in a realist way, States, only act towards their interests.

3.2.3. 2 main rules for friendship

3.2.3.1. disputes will be settled without war or the threat of it

3.2.3.2. they will act as a team if the security of one of them seems threat by a third party.

3.2.4. The term of friendship differentiates from “ally” in the sense that states expect the relation to continue after any case of aid.

3.2.4.1. There are little examples of this because enmity is a bigger problem for international politics. Very few States remain friends long enough.

3.3. Logic of Kantian anarchy (p. 302)

3.3.1. The probability of war is inherent in every state, but in a Kantian theory, this is no longer possible because war is no longer considerate a mean to settle disputes.

3.3.2. Assurance of no war comes from shared knowledge of each other’s peaceful intentions and behavior.

3.3.3. In a state of friendship, military power is no matter of concern.

3.3.4. Collective security à “All for one. One for all”: Reciprocity

3.4. Internalization

3.4.1. To explain their cooperation they will have to face factors of threat to act as a security team.

3.4.2. Three degrees of internalization

3.4.2.1. 1st → states don’t desire to violate the rules (going to war)

3.4.2.2. 2nd → it would be within each state’s self interest (through its representative) not to be left out by status quo states.

3.4.2.3. 3rd → it’s simply not worth it. States would be able to trust each other through institutions

3.4.3. When states develop themselves in the international arena they made global rules their own making it easier to follow them.

4. Main precepts

4.1. Structure and roles under anarchy (p. 251-259)

4.1.1. There is no relationship between the extent of culture in a system and the extent of cooperation

4.1.2. "role" is a key concept in the structure; there are properties NOT Agents

4.1.3. Culture is based on a structure of roles

4.1.4. Two problems of order in social life

4.1.4.1. Getting people to work together for mutual benefit

4.1.4.2. patterns of behavior determined by shared ideas to predict each other's behavior

4.1.5. Realists

4.1.5.1. shared ideas can only be created by centralized authority; assume the worst of the Other

4.2. State's identity & interests

4.2.1. Determined by domestic policies rather than international interests (p.246)

4.2.2. Exogenous to the system individualist approach to systematic theory (p.246).

4.3. Anarchy

4.3.1. three kinds of structure at the macro level based on what kind of roads dominate the system (p. 247).

4.3.1.1. enemy/ rival/ friend

4.3.2. only acquires logics as a function of the structure of what we put inside them (p.249)

4.4. There is no such thing as a logic of anarchy

4.4.1. its a process not a structure (p.247)

4.5. Nature of States

4.5.1. self-regarding and security seeking (p. 248).

4.5.1.1. Waltz

4.6. shared ideas

4.6.1. cutlure (p. 249)

4.6.1.1. self & other

4.7. Structure is a process

4.7.1. social (p. 249)

4.7.1.1. shared ideas